RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH AND INNOVATION: OPTIONS FOR
RESEARCH AND INNOVATION POLICY IN THE EU
Richard Owen, Professor of Strategic Innovation Management and Chair in Responsible Innovation
University of Exeter Business School, United Kingdom
Contents:
1.
Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): framing, definitions and policy initiatives
1.1. Introduction
1.2. What is RRI? Framings and definitions
1.3. RRI in European research policy: insights for Horizon 2020
2. RRI: Insights from Strategic Innovation Management in Business Studies and corporate settings
3. Options for taking RRI forward within the Horizon 2020 programme and beyond
4. Key Recommendations
1. Responsible Research and Innovation: framing, definitions and policy initiatives
1.1. Introduction
‘Research and innovation must respond to the needs and ambitions of society, reflect its values and be
responsible . . . our duty as policy makers (is) to shape a governance framework that encourages
responsible research and innovation’.
Marie Geoghegan-Quinn, EC Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science May 2012
Responsible Research and Innovation is set to become an important cross cutting theme for the EC
Horizon 2020 programme 1. This report aims to provide ERIAB with a concise overview of the state of
the art in terms of how RRI is being framed and how it is emerging both in policy and practice. It also
presents a set of concise recommendations for ERIAB to consider in terms of immediate next steps in
the context of Horizon 2020. Much of the academic discussion concerning RRI has emerged from
disciplines such as Science and Technology Studies (a branch of social sciences) and humanities (e.g.
philosophy), notably within the Science and Society domain at the EC. These have provided
important foundations for RRI, defining broad conceptual approaches, frameworks and a
philosophical underpinning. I will briefly summarise these, signposting ERIAB to further sources of
information for reference. Although discussions are very much ongoing, some distinct commonalities
have emerged in terms of how RRI is being framed, which I will describe. What many are now
turning to consider, and indeed a few public funders of research are experimenting with, is how to
move RRI from words to deeds in a meaningful and constructive manner, and what the EC might do
1
Article 5 of the Regulation establishing Horizon 2020
to support implementation within Horizon 2020. It is also notable that engagement with RRI by those
involved in the study and practice of innovation management and governance, for example in business
studies and in corporate settings, has to date been somewhat limited. This is important since some
well-established approaches to managing innovation in these settings, such as innovation ‘stage
gating’ (Cooper, 1990, Asante et al, in press), offer promising avenues for embedding and
implementing a RRI approach within Horizon 2020, and therefore in this report I will go on to focus
on these ‘doing’ aspects of RRI and the contribution innovation management in business studies can
make.
This is a rather critical moment for RRI in the context of its future within Horizon 2020 and beyond.
Ultimately RRI is something that could become a meaningful and even transformational way of
governing innovation responsibly in the EU, both in word and deed: ERIAB I believe has an
important role to play in defining this destination.
1.2. What is RRI? Framing and definitions
Few would argue against the sentiment, or notion, of responsible research and innovation. It is rare to
hear a counter view to one that innovation, and research leading to it, should be undertaken
responsibly. But beyond sentiment lie quite profound questions of framing and motivation, what RRI
actually means and how (if at all) it differs from what has come before. The last five or so years has
been a period of sense making, during which time academics and others (including those within
institutions such as Research Councils and the EC) have started to rationalise what RRI means as an
innovation itself, its potential implications and underlying motivations.
In general in the discipline of innovation management we can map the innovation space according to
four dimensions: product, process, position and paradigm (Figure 1):
Figure 1: Locating RRI (in blue) within the innovation space (adapted from Francis and Bessant,
2005)
RRI is first and foremost a process innovation, in as much as it proposes different ways of organising,
funding, undertaking and engaging with innovation and research leading to this, for example within
the context of the Horizon 2020 programme. RRI as a process is evolutionary in nature, building on
foundations (e.g. technology assessment, stakeholder and public engagement, anticipatory
governance, socio-technical integration, open innovation) and cognates (e.g. responsible
development) that have a rich history in academic thought across disciplines (see Fisher and Rip,
2013 for a recent review), a history which is also very evident throughout successive Framework
Programmes (Owen et al, 2012, Rodriguez et al, 2013): it integrates many of these foundations and
aims to embed them into the policies and processes of innovation. In doing so this RRI re-positions
and reframes these antecedents. Fundamentally, by repositioning these (e.g. within Horizon 2020) it
offers a new mental model for innovation policy and its delivery, a potential paradigm shift that may
present profound opportunities for Europe.
Although the framing of RRI in this space is ongoing, some distinct, common themes have already
emerged which allow its contours to be sketched. One important emergent theme is the departure
point for RRI. This is not one of risks and regulation, important though these are, but rather posing,
and seeking - in an inclusive, democratic way - to answer the question ‘what sort of future do we
collectively want innovation to create for Europe?’ (Owen et al, 2012; Owen et al 2013; Stilgoe et al,
2013; von Schomberg 2013).
In this regard RRI acknowledges the transformative
‘What sort of future do we want
power of innovation to create futures, that
innovation to create for Europe?’
innovations are often socially and politically
The departure point for RRI
constituted (Winner,1980) and that they embed
values (van den Hoven 2012). RRI pro-actively
seeks to create spaces and processes to allow these futures, the role of innovation in creating them,
and the values on which they are based, to be opened up to inclusive discussion and debate, and for
such discussions to be responded to i.e. as a deliberative, participatory, anticipatory and reflexive
process. It aims to empower social agency in innovation choices (Stirling, 2008), which are in turn
made more publically accountable (Jasanoff, 2003). This immediately raises the important question of
which values, or ‘normative anchor points’, should underpin innovation in an EU context (von
Schomberg 2013): what are the ‘right impacts’ that innovation should be directed towards and how
should these be arrived at? I will turn to this point shortly. It also raises tensions concerning long
standing traditions of scientific autonomy (Guston, 2012), the principle of market choice as a primary
mechanism to direct goods and services to their most desirable end use (Lee and Petts, 2013), the
established role responsibilities of scientists and innovators (Douglas, 2003; Mitcham 2003), and the
existing moral division of labour between, on one hand, the undertaking of research and innovation
and, on the other, understanding of (and where necessary managing) their social, political and
environmental implications.
This departure point for RRI has been evident in from a re-framing of ‘Science in Society’ to ‘Science
for Society, with Society’ at the EC (Owen et al, 2012), and the directing of science and innovation
towards societal ‘grand challenges’ Europe is facing now, and could face in the future (Lund
Declaration, 2009). This departure point challenges the European Commission, and others who fund
research and innovation in member states, to systematically facilitate inclusive engagement with the
purposes, motivations, intended impacts and politics of innovation, for example as a key element of
Horizon 2020, which is in turn responsive in its constitution, content and delivery:
Why do it? For what purpose and goals? Are these desirable? What are the motivations? Who could
benefit and how? Who might not benefit?
These are precisely the sorts of questions that are posed by publics when they encounter new
technologies and innovations (e,g, TNS-BRMB, 2010), and the sort of questions that history has
taught us should not be ignored. They will apply to many areas of techno-visionary science,
convergent technologies and innovation within the Horizon 2020 programme, from robotics to
synthetic biology, and from ICT to climate engineering. They are fundamentally questions of social
desirability and social acceptability. If explored and responded to such questions can allow
identification of new opportunities for value creation through innovation that is in the public interest,
while avoiding innovation that is not. As one example of this, in 2008 the UK Research Councils
undertook a series of public dialogues which identified the relative priorities of six potential
application areas in the field of nanotechnologies for healthcare: these were subsequently used to
frame the subsequent call for research proposals (Jones, 2008). The dialogues showed strong support
for nanotechnologies research and innovation that empowers people to take control of their health,
and less support for research on approaches such as theranostics (the simultaneous combining of
diagnostics and therapies), which were perceived as being disempowering: the value of personal
empowerment was therefore an important emergent theme from these dialogues. This programme has
been hailed as a success and is leading to a number of important new applications destined for market.
A similar approach is used by the Alzheimers Society which has a research network of some 200
carers and people with dementia who help set research priorities, prioritize grant applications and sit
on grant selection panels, with the understanding that such participation supports better decisions (i.e.
research and innovation that is more relevant, more desirable, of more value). There are clear parallels
with concepts of user-led innovation in the corporate world here. Similarly the Netherlands
Responsible Innovation programme places emphasis on ‘valorisation’ i.e. the involvement of
stakeholders on research and innovation valorisation panels to ensure that they are closely involved in
the research and that results from such research can be implemented directly.
Counter examples to these include the cases of smart metering and electronic patient safety records,
also in the Netherlands, where the desirability of such innovations were wrongly assumed (von
Schomberg, 2013, van den Hoven, 2013) and became deeply contested. On grounds of privacy both
innovations were rejected by the Dutch Senate, at a very considerable cost to the taxpayer, costs
which dwarfed the costs of the public dialogues undertaken in the area of nanotechnologies
healthcare. These are considerations that the company Monsanto also neglected at some cost in the
field of genetic modification, and which have cast long shadows in Europe, despite the potential for
GM, and now synthetic biology, to meet challenges facing society such as food and energy security.
History has also taught us that the purposes, promises and politics of innovation will often be
ambiguous and interpretively flexible, and that views and perceptions concerning these will be plural,
contested and dynamic. Innovation under umbrella terms such as ‘synthetic biology’ or
‘sustainability’, or societal challenges such as ‘secure, green and efficient energy’ will belie a host of
goals, motivations and intentions (Owen, 2013), which can never be assumed. The future
unintended interactions and impacts of innovation will also always be the subject of considerable
uncertainty, and often ignorance. Innovation reflects a complex weaving of ‘knowledge spaghetti’,
involving multiple actors, sometimes at global scales, in which innovations can be re-purposed and
where their interactions and impacts are often unpredictable. Irresponsibility is usually an emergent
consequence of the innovation ecosystem (what Beck described as ‘organised irresponsibility’) rather
than the lone actions of an individual, reflecting what Johnson (2001) described as “the problem of
many hands” i.e. the organizational reliance on a division of labour where most activities are split up
between numerous different individuals. Interactions and implications may only become clearer when
the context of use is understood, particularly since adaption and re-purposing by users can change
innovation trajectories in entirely unpredictable ways. Good intentions may therefore paradoxically
result in bad outcomes. One example was the innovation of mortgage-backed, collateralised debt
obligations which, as ‘toxic sub—prime’, wreaked
havoc in financial systems across the globe: an
‘How can we proceed under
innovation whose roots can in part be traced back
conditions of uncertainty, ignorance
through the 1990’s to political aspirations in the U.S.
and ambiguity?’
for affordable housing, particularly for low income and
The second key question for RRI
minority borrowers.
The unpredictability of innovation is something RRI acknowledges cannot be ignored in governance
terms. Innovation presents a well-known dilemma of control (Collingridge, 1980) i.e. the case for
control (e.g. through regulation) is often weak during the earlier phases of innovation as evidence of
impacts is poor, but by the time evidence of such impacts has become clearer, the innovation may be
‘locked –in’, and /or subject to the influence of powerful vested interests, or associated with
disproportionately high control costs. Significant impacts that are undesirable for society may have
occurred.
Regulation will always have an important role to play in
any formulation of RRI, but as a governance approach it
Reflexivity
is limited: myopic or even blind to things it has not
encountered before, or which lie at its margins. The
Deliberation
second key question for RRI is therefore ‘how can we
Responsiveness
proceed under conditions of uncertainty, ignorance and
Transparency
ambiguity?’ In addressing both this, and the first
Dimensions of RRI
question, RRI as a process seeks to embed a collective
capacity to be more anticipatory, more reflexive and more deliberative within the research and
innovation process (Appendix 1), which in turn is more responsive in terms of its goals, directions and
trajectories. These form key dimensions which, as a flexible, integrated and iterative learning
approach are emerging cornerstones of a RRI framework. Other dimensions such as transparency and
precaution are also important, the latter particularly when this is considered in an EC context. Others
have described an RRI approach using slightly different words (e.g. the Dutch Research Council
describes an approach to RRI as embedding valorisation by stakeholders, fostering interdisciplinarity
amongst scientists, social scientists and humanities scholars, and being proactive so that ethical and
societal aspects are incorporated into the design process from the start, Appendix 2). While
discussions are ongoing, these are consistent themes emerging from debates and the literature on RRI.
Individually, these dimensions of RRI have a rich history in academic thought. Integrated approaches
such as constructive and real time technology assessment (Schot and Rip, 1996; Guston and Sarewitz,
2002) and ‘midstream modulation’ (Fisher et al, 2006) also present important foundations for RRI
(Fisher and Rip, 2013). It is perhaps the dimension of responsiveness, particularly at institutional
levels that is critical, and which in turn is catalyzing reflection by institutions (e.g. Research
Councils) in terms of their own role responsibilities, noting the collective nature of responsibility,
which must be assigned across the innovation ecosystem, and where innovators, funders, stakeholders
and publics all have an important role to play. This collective nature of responsibility is a key feature
or RRI, but one which may present considerable challenges for implementation.
Anticipation
Von Schomberg (2013) has usefully drawn together the thinking into a working definition:
‘Responsible Research and Innovation is a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors
and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability,
sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products‘
This is a process which should be undertaken with normative and substantive motivations, i.e. it is the
right thing to do for reasons of democracy, equity and justice and that it makes for better decision
making in ways that accommodate social knowledge and values (Sykes and Macnaghten, 2013;
Stirling 2008).
1.3. RRI in European Research Policy: insights for Horizon 2020
Many of the tools and practical approaches to support the dimensions of RRI described above are
well-established and have a strong history in the EU: from programmes of technology assessment in
Norway, Germany and the Netherlands, through the undertaking of ‘grenelles’ in France and other
well known methods of public engagement such as consensus conferences and citizen’s juries in
Denmark. A few Research Councils and other public funders of research and innovation in EU
member states have also begun to make formal policy commitments to RRI, and / or they have
developed formal RRI programmes, or have embedded explicit RRI elements within broader
programmes of emerging technologies and innovation. These provide useful insights and signposts
for the possible development and evolution of RRI within the EC, and specifically Horizon 2020.
The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), one of the largest public funders
of innovation – driven research in the UK, made a formal commitment to a framework for responsible
innovation in October 2013 (EPSRC, 2013). EPSRC frames RRI around the dimensions described
above, as a ‘process that seeks to promote creativity and opportunities for science and innovation that
are socially desirable and undertaken in the public interest’. It ‘acknowledges that innovation can raise
questions and dilemmas and is often ambiguous in terms of purposes and motivations and
unpredictable in terms of impacts, beneficial or otherwise’ going on to state that RRI ‘creates spaces
and processes to explore these aspects of innovation in an open, inclusive and timely way’. It stresses
that ‘this is a collective responsibility…which goes beyond considerations of risk and regulation’.
What is important about this policy statement is that it makes clear that EPSRC itself has important
responsibilities as a funder to ‘promote reflection, understanding, and training... welcome funding
proposals that seek to explore aspects of RRI as an integral part of the research endeavour, be vigilant
to emerging social, environmental, ethical and regulatory challenges which may arise from new
research (including the alerting of policy makers in Government to emerging issues and opportunities
as these become apparent), with a role to broaden debate at an early stage. It makes a commitment to
ensure RRI is prominent in EPSRC’s strategic thinking and funding plans, including proposal
assessment.
The EPSRC statement describes that in some cases RRI will be an approach where detailed
consideration is premature or even unwarranted, but that in other cases it may be recommended, or
even required. As such, all should be familiar with and be committed to RRI, reflecting an
overarching commitment by EPSRC’s across all its investments, whilst acknowledging that it should
be flexible in terms of implementation. In doing so EPSRC states that it (and others it works with such
as universities) will need to actively promote partnerships across disciplines and spheres of expertise,
and support programmes of training, integrated approaches and collaborative research to enable a
meaningful commitment to RRI to be taken forward. Importantly, EPSRC recognises that RRI must
itself be a deliberative and responsive process in its own development, shaped by the research
community and stakeholder base. Ultimately, while these are only words, they represent an important
and necessary statement of commitment, and present
a broad framework under which EPSRC will ask its
A stated commitment to a clearly
community to respond and within which it frames its
articulated EU framework for RRI
expectations. This type of commitment and
The first step
overarching framework could be an important first
step for taking RRI forward within Horizon 2020.
The framework I and colleagues have developed and which EPSRC adopted is not a normative
framework, in the sense that it has defined a process but not the values upon which this should rest i.e.
the ‘right impacts’ that innovation should strive to realise, for example in a European context. The
rationale for this was that it was designed as a generic framework that acknowledges that values will
differ according to the context in which the framework is applied, and will be culturally – sensitive.
Any EU framework for RRI will therefore require a normative basis upon which a RRI process
should act, in order to allow the departure point for RRI above to be addressed and the ‘right impacts’
for innovation to be identified, and subsequently explored via Horizon 2020. Von Schomberg (2013)
has argued that these ‘right impacts’ should be based on the ‘normative anchor points’ described in
the Treaty of the European Union (Figure 2). This suggests that, at least at a high level, innovation,
science and technological advance should be promoted with the aim of a ‘harmonious, balanced and
sustainable development of economic activities, a high level of employment and of social protection,
equality between men and women, sustainable and non-inflationary growth, a high degree of
competitiveness and convergence of economic
performance, a high level of protection and improvement
Normative anchor points for a
of the quality of the environment, the raising of the
European Framework for RRI
standard of living and quality of life, and economic and
High level values within the EU Treaty
social cohesion and solidarity among Member States’.
Of course, as has already been noted, many of these anchor points will belie a range of motivations
and create tensions, or even be in conflict with one another. One possible example is the tension
between ‘a high degree of competitiveness and convergence of economic performance’ and ‘a high
level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment’. This suggests that while at a
high level such normative anchor points provide a legitimate starting point for a conversation
concerning the goals for innovation that Europeans aspire to, and for what purposes and motivations,
this must only be seen as a starting point. This conversation, which will surface tensions, dilemmas
and, ultimately, opportunities, will inevitably vary according to the country, even region within a
country, in which it is undertaken. The example quoted above concerning nanotechnologies and
healthcare shows that while few would argue that at a high level the goal of innovation for health is
desirable, beneath this there are specific areas of health innovation that are more desirable than others,
and some that are in fact undesirable, reflecting the tensions caused by conflicting values: this may
result in what has been described as ‘moral overload’ (see van den Hoven 2013). While there can
never be any guarantee of resolution for this, inclusive deliberation presents the best chance of
ensuring innovation is reflexive, responsive and ultimately both acceptable and desirable in this
context. Of course one cannot advocate or feasibly implement an EU - wide phase of public
engagement with every detailed element of Horizon 2020, but at least at a programmatic level, for
example associated with the content and targets for the societal challenges themes within Horizon
2020, or the Future Emerging Technologies theme, this will be important.
Figure 2. Normative anchor points derived from the Treaty on the
European Union
Promotion of scientific and
Technological advance
Competitive social
Market economy
Sustainable development
Promotion of social justice, equality women and men,
Solidarity, fundamental rights
Quality of life, high level of protection
Human health and environment
The Dutch Responsible Innovation progamme
(MVI)2,funded by NWO (the Dutch Research Council),
in the EU Treaty to the work
offers some useful insights in terms of the transcription
programmes within Horizon 2020
of high level values within the EU Treaty into
programmes of work in Horizon 2020. Established in
2009, MVI ‘encourages research that considers the ethical and social aspects of new technology from
the design phase onwards’. Researchers in the fields of science, humanities and social sciences are
encouraged to come together to proactively explore the ethical and societal issues surrounding
innovation, in close consultation with relevant stakeholders: it is therefore both inter and trans
disciplinary in nature. NWO developed its Responsible Innovation programme in partnership with six
Dutch ministries, which contributed to the research programming and to the funding. After a
successful first phase in diverse areas of innovation, the second phase is now focussing on the Dutch
‘Top Sectors’3: In January 2013, ten projects in four separate top sectors (Energy; Agriculture, Food
and Horticulture; Life Sciences and Health; Propagation Materials) were launched in the Responsible
Innovation programme, addressing subjects put forward by the Top Sectors themselves. These include
projects addressing issues such as the desirability and ethical / societal dimensions of shale gas
extraction, smart grids and offshore wind turbines (Top Sector Energy, the latter with a focus on
design) and confidence in and ethical issues concerning telecare and telemonitoring (Top Sector
Health).
RRI: from normative anchor points
The approach taken by the Dutch RRI programme provides some useful insights for RRI within the
Horizon 2020 programme. The societal challenges identified within Horizon 2020 (Appendix 3)
might for example also adopt a similar strategy taken by the NWO in terms of embedding an RRI
approach within the ‘Top Sectors’ in the Netherlands, and this could offer one immediate, concrete
pathway for implementing RRI at an EC level beneath a common EU RRI framework that sets out the
1
3
http://www.nwo.nl/en/research-and-results/programmes/responsible+innovation
http://www.government.nl/issues/entrepreneurship-and-innovation/investing-in-top-sectors
framing, conceptualisation and expectations (see above). The Horizon 2020 Societal Challenges
programme is already committed to a ‘challenge-based approach that will bring together resources
and knowledge across different fields, technologies and disciplines, including social sciences and the
humanities’ and therefore offers an excellent opportunity for taking a RRI framework forward in a
meaningful and substantive way. The ‘Secure, Clean and Efficient Energy’ challenge for example
already contains a public engagement key objective. This challenge will focus on energy efficiency,
low carbon technologies and smart cities /communities in the first work programme, and much like
the Dutch Top Sectors approach could benefit immediately from the embedding of a RRI approach.
Other Research Councils that have been considering RRI in the context of their operational activities
also offer useful insights for the EC in terms of implementation within Horizon 2020. The Norwegian
Research Council (NFR) has for example undertaken some experiments in RRI which provide
intelligence in terms of both framing and implementation. Norway is facing a future in which there
may well be a need for transition from a historically resource – extraction focused economy, based for
example on oil, fishing, mariculture and forestry, to a different (or perhaps even new) economic
model, while maintaining Norwegian values that include the desire for economic resilience,
environmental sustainability, a robust welfare state and strong regional identity (e.g. within its coastal
communities). This presents an important opportunity for a balanced and inclusive discussion about
the role of innovation in securing Norway’s future and how the NFR and others it works with (e.g.
Innovation Norway which works primarily with businesses) should proceed: NFR, like many public
funders of research and innovation across Europe, is therefore considering how the innovation space
should be best exploited in a changing and uncertain world and in line with its values. As with many
other countries in the EU, Norway has many of the ingredients to support a strong and meaningful
RRI initiative: there is for example long standing experience in technology assessment, stakeholder
engagement and associated specific methodologies within the Norwegian Technology Board, a wellestablished tradition of research ethics (including well –established national research ethics
committees) and a small but globally - recognised and internationally well-networked ELSA (Ethical,
Legal and Societal Aspects) academic community, funded by NFR through dedicated programmes
since 2002. Indeed the current NFR ELSA work programme4 already advocates key elements of a
RRI philosophy, with an emphasis on the need for reflexivity, as the ‘capacity of actors (researchers,
institutions) to question their own taken-for-granted assumptions and routines and limitations of
knowledge’…where ’reflexive learning means insight into the assumptions which tacitly shape our
own understanding and interactions’. The work
programme describes the importance of moving
Member states may already have
away from ‘aspirations of prediction and control,
some or even many critical elements
towards a richer public deliberation about visions,
for a co-ordinated RRI approach
ends and purposes of science and technology’ and
‘interactive models of knowledge production’.
NFR began to formally consider RRI in 2010, and subsequently included an embedded RRI
component in its Nanotek 2021 programme and associated call for proposals in 2012, which received
submissions from both academic and private research and innovation institutions. NFR requested
ELSA/HSE (health, safety and environment) approaches within the project proposals and the RRI
elements were formally, and independently evaluated. However, reflecting the absence of a clear,
overarching framework and ambiguity in terms of NFR’s expectations, submissions were found to be
4
http://www.forskningsradet.no/prognett-elsa/Home_page/1224698247023
extremely mixed in terms of how applicants responded. In a few cases there were dedicated work
packages which considered ELSA and HSE, with some incorporating stakeholder and public
engagement and some proposing life cycle assessment approaches: in isolated instances these were
imaginative and well-formulated. In other instances the submissions were cursory in nature and in at
least one case the RRI dimensions of the call were effectively ignored. Few applicants had attempted
to reach across to experts with competencies related to RRI, for example in Norwegian universities
and beyond. Some on the assessment panel argued that while the need for a RRI approach was never
in dispute, they had concerns about any significant diversion of financial resources from the core
science and innovation activities.
This Norwegian experience replicated a similar experience in the UK two years earlier, where the
EPSRC had also attempted to embed RRI within research proposal evaluations in the third of its
nanotechologies ‘Grand Challenges’. This was aimed at investigating the potential contribution of
nano for carbon capture from the atmosphere (Owen and Goldberg, 2010). The framing of RRI within
this call was narrow: applicants were required to submit a risk register (an example of which is given
in Appendix 4) identifying any environmental, health or societal impacts both within the research
itself or envisaged application(s), qualitatively provide an appraisal of risk for each identified impact,
and an estimate of uncertainty, and identify who in the project team would be accountable for
managing any risks identified. The responses to this call were, perhaps unsurprisingly, both
conservative and, by and large, equally narrow. There were no reflections on the purposes or
motivations for the proposed research. It demonstrated the limits of an RRI approach that is based
solely on risk assessment and the importance of framing RRI and the associated expectations of
funding bodies in research calls. However it did, for the first time, prompt both EPSRC and its
community to reflect on the broader impacts and implications of the proposed research, and this
proved to be a useful and manageable entry point. In a few cases, as with the Norwegian experience,
the proposals also went beyond risk assessment to include mechanisms of public engagement, life
cycle analysis and technology assessment, with collaborations involving experts from across
disciplines through an integrated approach.
These experiments in RRI implementation, as well as the findings of research into perceptions of RRI
(e.g. a forthcoming report on perceptions in the ICT community (Eden et al, in prep)) have
highlighted several important lessons which may be of value as the EC considers RRI within Horizon
2020:
•
for many researchers framings of role responsibility tend to focus on established norms of
best scientific practice, research integrity, laboratory health, safety, hazard and risk
management, ethical compliance (e.g. data protection and privacy, informed consent where
necessary) and regulation where this applies (see also Douglas, 2003). Researchers may
struggle with, and will certainly require support for, the establishing of a more broadlyconfigured role that considers the societal context of the research and innovation (Mitcham,
2003; Douglas, 2003), even in areas such as ICT where researchers appreciate that the
uncertainties are often more social than scientific. Broader moral and social responsibilities
may in this regard be assigned by them to others, such as public or private institutions. Even
in some contentious areas of research and innovation (e.g. on climate engineering) projects
may be framed as purely technical ones, with the primary goal of objectively producing data
in a robust way on which others can act, and with little consideration of the broader political
symbolism or societal context (Owen et al, in press), see below.
•
a broadly – configured and clearly articulated framework for RRI established for Horizon
2020 is necessary to guide applicants making research proposals and to ensure expectations
are clear to all: this will be for many may be new territory since many may have never
explicitly been asked to consider these broader questions. Conversely, the absence of
guidance may result in a patchy, poor or poorly- conceived response.
•
the level of detail that such a framework contains is critical: if this too general, unclear, or
ambiguous the response may be variable, inappropriate or insufficient. Conversely if it is too
prescriptive it will not allow sufficient flexibility for applicants to respond in imaginative and
creative ways that are appropriate for the innovation context in which they work – a ‘deficit’
model of engagement may create a ‘closing down’ framing and be perceived as heavy-handed
or a burden rather than an mechanism to promote working with others which creates
opportunities for innovation in the public interest.
•
to achieve the necessary inter and trans-disciplinarity applicants will need to be signposted to
resources and tools that can support them and be facilitated to work across and beyond
disciplines prior to proposal submission . They will need to budget for the necessary
competencies within their proposals, which are allowed for and encouraged in the call
documents themselves.
•
integrated and embedded approaches where RRI is designed in from the outset are preferable
(‘RRI by design’)5. Funding bodies have a particular role to play in this regard, within their
programme and funding initiative such as Horizon 2020.
•
the EC should resist the temptation for RRI to become a bureaucratic tick box, or add-on, no
matter how easy and practical this may seem.
RRI will require a longer term culture
RRI: a culture change, not a
change, including the work of the
bureaucratic tick box exercise
Commission itself, which ultimately will be of
greater value.
In the Netherlands and Norway this more broadly configured approach is under serious consideration.
As an example, the newly formed NFR Biotek 2021 programme6 in Norway has learned from
previous experiences. Its work programme contains a specific objective to ‘ensure the responsible
development of technology that addresses global social challenges in the areas of health, sustainable
food and industrial production’. Its International Advisory Group has formally recommended that the
programme be underpinned by a framework for responsible innovation, from design through delivery,
which is developed at a more generic NFR level but for which the Biotek 2021 programme acts as an
exemplar. An initial period of significant and meaningful stakeholder and public engagement (with
academics, end users, industry, clinical groups, civil society groups, and the public, using a variety of
approaches (e.g. focus groups, stakeholder workshops)) was recommended, to refine the scope and
goals of the programme, and specifically target programmatic research in challenge areas and beyond
through a substantive process in which such engagement supports the programmes’s strategic
direction and alignment of project to areas of national importance for Norway.
5
6
See http://www.joseph-murphy.org/synthetic-biology-and-responsible-innovation.html for an example.
http://www.forskningsradet.no/prognett-biotek2021/Home_page/1253970728140
2. RRI: Insights from Strategic Innovation Management in Business Studies and corporate settings
So far this report has considered RRI from a conceptual and emerging research and innovation policy
perspective in Europe. What insights can be gained from the corporate world, and in particular
innovation management? Innovation is an activity that is frequently managed within corporate and
sometimes public organisations. Indeed there is an entire discipline of strategic innovation
management in Business Studies devoted to research, identifying best practice and optimising the
innovation process for value creation.
One of the most well- known and empirically validated models of innovation management is one
developed by Tidd et al (2009), for which associated audit tools7 have also been developed (Figure 3)
Figure 3: Innovation Management Model (after Tidd et al, 2009)
This model defines distinct elements of a successful innovation management process. These are:
a) search, or the development of effective mechanisms for identifying innovation opportunities: ideas
that can be both radical and incremental. How this is done can vary considerably between
organisations, but it has a long history, e.g. through the employment of focus groups and formal or
informal processes of horizon scanning (Palomino et al, 2012).In the area of ICT for example there is
a long tradition of the use of techniques that facilitate public participation such as workshops, focus
groups, prototyping and co-design activities. In recent decades, and in particular since the advent of
the internet, there has been a progressive move towards more participatory models of user- defined
and open innovation (Chesbrough, 2006), reflected in the innovation strategies of multi-national
companies such as Procter and Gamble and its ‘Connect and Develop’ approach8. In this regard
processes of deliberation and stakeholder engagement proposed in emergent RRI frameworks are not
7
8
http://www.managing-innovation.com/tools/How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Manage%20Innovation.pdf
http://www.managing-innovation.com/ar_chapter6_roy_sandbach.php
uncommon, although the motivations, purposes and intended outcomes of such deliberative
approaches i.e. how this is framed and its normative basis, are key.
b) selection, where the organization makes decisions concerning which innovation pathways to
support in the context of the organisations’ values, mission and / or business strategy; the value
proposition (to customers, shareholders, stakeholders, community); the knowledge base (either
internal or external) that will be required, how accessible this will be and the resources required; risks
and ‘fit’ with the business. This is a phase where the reflection and anticipation dimensions of RRI
are often evident, but again the framing and its normative basis can vary, extending from a value
proposition that is aimed at maximising a single bottom line and shareholder return, through triple
bottom line and concepts of shared value (Porter, 2011) to innovations that are entirely aimed at social
goals, and where profit is not a primary motivation (e.g. Gupta 2012). The framing of such reflection
and anticipation may be quite narrowly focussed within the context of the organisations’ mission,
values and culture, and will depend on whether the innovation is likely to be incremental or disruptive
(Asante et al, in press).
c) implementation, a process that gradually pulls together different pieces of knowledge and weaves
them into an innovation with the aim of acquiring knowledge; executing the project; and launching
and sustaining the innovation.
Companies may employ such tools as stage gating (Cooper, 1990) to guide decision making during
the search, selection and implementation phases of innovation management (Figure 4)9, whereby
investment of resources is phased (i.e. the ‘stage’), with each phase being subject to formal or
informal approval at a decision ‘gate’. Typically the inputs to a decision gate will include
considerations of technical feasibility, market potential and risk.
Figure 4: Simplified stage gating process (after Cooper 1990)
d) learning (also related to this is the concept of benefits and value capture), where the organization
develops mechanisms to learn and capture value from the innovation, including commercial success,
increased market share or knowledge, aimed at refining and improving subsequent cycles of
innovation. Learning is however a more holistic feature of the innovation management model as a
whole, reflecting the observation that innovation management is a learned capability, where the idea
of learning through trial and error to build effective routines can help improve the chances of
successful innovation. The model stresses the importance of proactive development of linkages (e.g.
with universities) which support an organization to cross boundaries and connect to external
9
http://www.managing-innovation.com/tools/Stage%20Gate%20Models.pdf
knowledge sources (users, suppliers, customers etc…), an innovative culture (organisation) and
(particularly for larger organisations), the need for a formal innovation strategy as important elements
of a successful innovation approach.
In summary, innovation management approaches in corporate (and indeed some public service)
organisations highlight:
a) that there are well- established processes that incorporate anticipation (and foresight10),
reflection, deliberation and responsiveness: these are not unfamiliar words in a business
context, and indeed are often a requirement (to varying degrees) for securing venture
capitalist funds for small and medium size companies, where questions such as ‘what value
will be created?’ and ‘what are the risks?’ are important elements of any investment
proposition and business case. It is how these processes are framed, and their normative basis
that is key. It is for this reason that any framework for RRI developed through Horizon 2020
must have both process and normative dimensions, in which the normative framing is itself
opened up to broad deliberation in terms of how programmes are scoped, their goals and
motivations i.e. the value propositions within Horizon 2020 itself.
b) that practical tools in innovation management which are commonly used in businesses (e.g. in
new product development departments) have a strong potential role to play in how RRI could
be implemented, for example in the Horizon 2020 Societal Challenges, the Future Emerging
Technologies programme and Enabling and Industrial Technologies programme.
Figure 5 shows an example of such an innovation stage gating approach which is used in a large,
global asset management company and that we have researched in some detail. This shows that
innovation of new products (here new funds and other financial products) is carefully managed, with a
central co-ordinating function provided by a small Product Development team who co-ordinate
innovation – related activities of a large number of internal and external actors, from ideation through
Business Acceptance Case (BAC) development, product testing and launch: it is far from a laissez
faire approach. The innovation process is phased and governed, with clear decision gates where
formal approval for continued resourcing is made by accountable individuals within the company.
This is framed by EU legislation and involves specific prospectus approval by, in this case, the UK
Financial Conduct Authority. It is also framed by the company’s existing policies on Corporate Social
Responsibility, bribery, corruption and ethical investment.
Our research in this company (Asante et al, in press) showed that while there was strong evidence of
anticipation, reflection and deliberation (including the involvement of retail and institutional (e.g.
pension fund) clients in product design and testing) these were quite narrowly framed, for example on
understanding operational, legal, regulatory and reputational risks (echoing earlier findings described
in section 1.3 above). Creating value through innovation by meeting client needs was found to be an
acceptable definition of what responsible financial innovation meant to staff. The context for this was
an inherently cautious corporate culture, where innovation was largely incremental and the probability
of bringing something destructive to market perceived as being low. This resulted in what has been
described as ‘iterative agency’ (Pandza and Ellwood, 2013) in which there is routine, habitual and
selective reactivation of past behaviour patterns which become institutionally stabilized. In these
10
http://www.shell.com/global/future-energy/scenarios.html
instances issues of responsibility are perceived as being largely uncomplicated. This can be at the
expense of other forms of agency (e.g. projective agency which involves imaginative projection of
possible future trajectories of actions) and evaluative agency (where judgements are made among
alternative possibilities in response to emerging demands, dilemmas and ambiguities).
Figure 5: Stage gating model of innovation management at Fidelity Worldwide Investments
(from Asante et al, in press).
Arguably, where innovation is incremental and tightly
regulated such as in this case, existing approaches to
approaches offer opportunities for
innovation management such as this may be sufficient,
RRI implementation
although this can never be guaranteed. In other
contexts, particularly where innovation is disruptive
and falls into a regulatory gap or void, the embedding of a more broadly-configured RRI approach
that facilitates projective and imaginative agency may be recommended, or should even be required
by the EC. It is inevitable that the Horizon 2020 programme will present something of a continuum
from the incremental to the transformative, radical and disruptive. As such, a generic RRI framework
is necessary, even if there will be instances where, at least initially, detailed consideration may not be
required.
Established innovation management
This stage gating model of innovation management, if this is broadened to include the dimensions of
RRI described above, from the design or ideation phase onwards, offers one potentially useful
approach to implementing RRI within Horizon 2020 thematic elements such as the Societal
Challenges and Future Emerging Technologies themes, under a generic framework adopted at a high
level (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Embedding RRI within a flexible stage gating model of innovation governance (adapted
from Owen et al, 2013)
Initial experiments in to how such stage gating approaches might be broadened have already been
undertaken in a contentious, political and disruptive field of ‘techno-science in the making’, solar
radiation management (SRM) – a form of climate engineering technology. (Macnaghten and Owen,
2011; Owen et al, 2013; Stilgoe et al, 2013; Owen in press). In 2010 several of the UK Research
Councils funded a project called SPICE (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering).
The SPICE project aimed to investigate whether it might be feasible to design a system that allows
injection of gigatonnes of sulphate particles into the Earth’s stratosphere via a 20km high hose
attached to a large tethered balloon. By undertaking such stratospheric particle injection it was
proposed that it might be possible to mimic the transient, global temperature-reducing effects
witnessed during volcanic eruptions, through a reduction in incoming solar radiation. The project
would not undertake SRM itself, but aimed to investigate a) what types of particles could be injected
into the stratosphere for the purposes of SRM; b) how these particles could be deployed
stratospherically and c) what impacts might be associated with deployment. The second objective
included a proposed field trial in which a hose would be tethered to a balloon at 1km altitude, through
which small quantities of water would be pumped: the aim was to understand the dynamics and
behaviour of the tethered balloon configuration in order to inform the design of the 20km high
deployment system (Appendix 5).
The project raised a number of difficult ethical, political and risk-related questions. However it had
been conceived as a purely technical project assessing feasibility and impacts (e.g. on precipitation
patterns), reflecting the moral division of labour described earlier: its broader moral, social and
political dimensions were not considered, and it passed the standard ethical approval processes within
the universities with little or no comment. The project’s politically symbolism (Stilgoe et al, 2013)
and associated questions concerning governance, moral hazard, our relationship with nature,
uncertainty and its political constitution (Szersynski et al, 2013) had not been considered in the
project design in any way, despite the fact that these issues would prove to be critical to the public and
stakeholders (Macnaghten and Szersynski, 2013; Stilgoe et al, 2013).
Embedding an RRI approach into a stage gating architecture allowed us to explore these questions in
a balanced and structured way, based upon the RRI dimensions described above. These were
translated into a set of criteria and simple questions which the project team were asked to respond to
at an independent ‘stage gate panel’ (Appendix 5) i.e. a decision gate, which was convened by the
Research Councils (Macnaghten and Owen, 2011; Stilgoe et al, 2013). Release of funds for the field
trial was contingent on the outcomes of this decision gate: as such the process was responsive in terms
of whether, and if so how, the research should proceed. Two of these criteria (on proximal risks and
regulatory compliance associated with the test bed itself) were passed with little comment. However
the remaining three criteria - which asked for broad reflection and anticipation concerning possible
impacts, social, political and environmental implications and to undertake deliberation with
stakeholders and publics - were not passed and as a result the test bed was delayed until such
activities has been undertaken and evaluated independently by the stage gate panel again. Ultimately
this prompted a useful period of public and stakeholder engagement (Pidgeon et al, 2013; Stilgoe et
al, 2013) which has been an important contribution to the debate on the social desirability and
acceptability of SRM (Owen, in press). It also prompted more detailed reflection and questioning by
the SPICE team itself, which surfaced the existence of a prior patent application for the proposed
system which had not been known to the project team, raising questions of motivation and disclosure
and which eventually resulted in the field trial being cancelled.
There were some important lessons learned from this
experiment in RRI implementation. Firstly, the RRI
approach was introduced after the project had been
adequately resourced and
funded – it was effectively retro-fitted within the project
supported by programmes of
rather than being designed- in. One of the principle
training and education
issues with this, which became very clear during the
subsequent stakeholder engagement, was whether the project should have been funded at all without
due consideration of its broader political, social and moral dimensions. The Research Councils,
stakeholders, scientists and ourselves recognised this as a distinct limitation (Macnaghten and Owen,
2011). There was an absence of an overarching framework which could be applied during the
programme scoping (by the Research Councils) and project proposal development and evaluation.
Secondly, and resulting from this, the necessary competencies to allow an RRI approach to be taken
forward were not embedded and resourced within the project itself, which was problematic for the
project team: ultimately the engagement work had to be commissioned as additional work to expert
practitioners in public engagement (Pidgeon et al, 2013). Although the SPICE team attempted
valiantly to respond to RRI, they lacked the skills, experience and training to do this. The implications
of this for successful implementation of RRI at a Horizon 2020 level are twofold:
RRI will need to be ‘designed in’,
a) for RRI to be successful it must be designed in and adequately resourced within projects and
programmes from the outset.
b) this in turn will require both the facilitation of multi and interdisciplinary partnerships and
more systematic programmes of training and education at a doctoral (even undergraduate)
level.
The lessons learned in this case study were strongly echoed in another experiment in RRI, one
conducted with businesses but in an entirely different field of research and innovation: synthetic
biology. In 2012 the UK Technology Strategy Board, building on the recommendations of Roadmap
for Synthetic Biology11, made several significant investments in synthetic biology in which RRI was a
prominent feature. The first of these was an industrial feasibility competition, which was business –
led and required applicants from companies to make a RRI submission (so called ‘Appendix D’) as
part of their proposals, in accordance with a responsible innovation framework12 : these were assessed
by an independent panel. RRI was framed by the TSB as ‘consideration of ethical, societal and
regulatory issues and appropriate response during the process of carrying out the R&D, and the
commercial use of the findings’ where there was a requirement to ‘anticipate and give responsible
consideration to the intended and potential unintended impacts of the commercial development and
use of the technology, including the potential for misuse, before the work begins….and to propose
appropriate action to prevent or mitigate adverse impacts’. The framework they used drew on a
number of inputs, including my work described above and processes used in ethical investment and
ethical finance: it is a rather complex document divided into two parts: a) ethical and social and b)
regulatory.
In terms of ethical and social considerations it asked applicants to ensure basic human rights are
respected, that there should be a net environmental benefit and no exacerbation of environmental
degradation, that products be developed in accordance with trade principles that are fair and that
recognise the rights of people to just reward (including labour rights and intellectual property rights)
and that costs and benefits are equitably distributed. The framework had normative elements, with
defined ‘positive drivers’ that included the need for innovation to:
a) benefit society and/or human wellbeing (education, arts and culture, housing and employment or
life-saving and life-enhancing products such as medicines, medical devices and safety
equipment) – a number of the project proposals submitted were therefore in the area of healthcare
and specifically disease control;
b) enhance and support the environment (green transport, waste minimisation, improving efficiency
of water use and resilience of water systems, minimal use of non-renewable resources, increased
use of renewable resources). Projects were asked to take a life cycle approach and indicate any
environmentally beneficial impacts – a large number of the projects submitted were therefore for
the engineering of microbes to enable recovery from waste streams to produce fuels or high value
chemicals and chemical intermediates, with less reliance on volatile, carbon intensive
petrochemical feedstocks.
11
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/publications/SyntheticBiologyRoadmap.pdf
12
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130221185318/www.innovateuk.org/_assets/responsible_inn
ovation.pdf
c) companies that exhibit good governance, sound practices in terms of employment ethics,
health and safety etc.
‘Negative drivers’ included end uses leading to social damage (e.g. disadvantaging communities
economically or socially or bearing disproportionate risk on them); environmental damage; absence of
clear policies on bribery and corruption; inappropriate use of animal products; not following best
practice in terms of testing on animals; production and sale of weapons outside relevant treaties or for
non-defence purposes; and addictive substances and behaviours.
In terms of the regulatory aspects of the framework applicants were asked to demonstrate familiarity
and compliance with applicable regulations (e.g. to genetically modified organisms, biological and
toxin weapons, and regulations on medicines for human use), while committing to making regular
reassessments of regulatory requirements as the project develops.
The RRI submissions were assessed by the panel as being disappointing overall. By and large the
health and safety and regulatory aspects were adequately addressed, and the proposals arguably met
the ‘positive drivers’ for the call (i.e. being directed towards health and sustainable manufacturing
approaches). However there was little evidence of meaningful reflection, anticipation or deliberation,
with most proposals relying on standard dissemination practices. There were concerns that beyond the
de minimus requirements companies had not seriously engaged with the call requirements (which was
also perceived by some as being unclear or ambiguous) (Appendix 6). The TSB, in part recognising
the need to further support the companies on the RRI aspects of the call, established two RRI
‘Mentors’ with considerable experience in business who subsequently visited the companies,
evaluated their RRI activities and provided help and support. At a subsequent workshop in November
2013 convened by TSB and which included all the companies and the mentors it was notable that very
few details about specific activities being undertaken by companies were presented or discussed
Feedback from the companies may in part explain this, and is important learning in terms of how RRI
might be implemented in the context of Horizon 2020.
Most of the companies were aware of, and appreciated the
need for, responsible innovation and even some of the
principles behind it, and that RRI ultimately makes good
the need to demonstrate
business sense. However, most of the companies were
added value
small and medium enterprises and it was clear that for
them RRI incurs a potential financial cost for which the added value would need to be demonstrated,
particularly to investors (e.g. venture capitalists). Some companies had very little capital and for them
the priority was that they were commercially viable in the coming year: many wanted to know what
the return on an RRI investment would be given the hard commercial realities they faced. There was
therefore a need to articulate the benefits and added value from a commercial perspective. Many
seemed to understand that these were short term constraints, and that in the long term, and in
particular for the sustainability of their businesses and synthetic biology as a whole, RRI was
important, even critical. They appreciated that if one company failed to implement RRI properly or
meaningfully, or did not do it at all there could be consequences for all and the future of the
technology.
Case studies of good practice of RRI and signposting to resources and sources of expertise were
perceived as useful to make the case for their investors. Leveraging networks such as knowledge
transfer networks were recommended as an important vehicle to provide resources and expertise and
the funding of RRI activities in and across companies, acting in the interest of the sector as a whole.
RRI in a commercial environment:
3. Options for taking RRI forward within the EC Horizon 2020 programme and beyond
The EC’s Science in Society programme has framed RRI as: a process that ‘fosters the creativity and
innovativeness of European societies. In general terms, it implies anticipating and assessing potential
implications and societal expectations with regard to research and innovation. In practice, RRI
consists of designing and implementing R&I policy that will a) engage society more broadly in its
research and innovation activities, b) increase the access to scientific results, c) ensure gender equality
in both the research process and research content, d) take account of the ethics dimension, and e)
promote formal and informal science education’’ (Science in Society Work Programme, Horizon
2020). Building on a set of projects (Appendix 6) funded in the last two phases of FP7, the first
Science in Society work programme of Horizon 2020 contains a number of elements which are aimed
at the further building and strengthening of RRI across Europe.
The experiences in RRI that I have described provide some useful insights for how these existing and
new RRI elements funded by the EC might contribute to a holistic RRI approach within Horizon
2020:
a) As I have stressed several times, an important first step is the articulation of, and commitment
to, a clearly worded and unambiguous RRI policy framework for Horizon 2020 that helps
guide all stakeholders and clearly sets out expectations13. A number of EU RRI projects that
have recently begun (Appendix 7) can provide helpful inputs to this, but ultimately this is
something that has to be undertaken at a Commission level as an overarching and central
element of Horizon 2020: currently most of the funding and RRI activities lie within the
Science in Society programme. As I have mentioned before the framing, normative basis and
level of detail contained in such a framework are important considerations. The EC has
already made a general commitment to RRI in Horizon 2020, what is now needed is a guiding
framework to support delivery across Horizon 2020 investments. ERIAB could be an
important location for the articulation of such a framework, working with other stakeholders,
and play a leadership role in this regard. The development of an EC Framework for RRI
could be achieved in a relatively short space of time, with a key goal to support and underpin
the scoping and publication of the second work programme for Horizon 2020 in 2015-2016.
b) Beneath this EU RRI Framework there is a need to identify particular thematic elements of
the Horizon 2020 programme within which an RRI approach is specifically recommended, or
even required, and which can subsequently serve as exemplars for RRI implementation14. An
initial scoping exercise could productively result in a Horizon 2020 RRI Roadmap which
guides the second and subsequent work programmes. Clear candidates include the Societal
Challenges programme, Future Emerging Technologies programme, Enabling and Industrial
Technologies programme and Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies
programme, and associated challenge driven programmes such as the European Innovation
Partnerships. Funded project(s) within the current Horizon 2020 Science in Society work
programme can provide inputs into this e.g. the current call for ‘developing governance for
13
This concurs with a key recommendation made in an expert group’s report to the EC on Options for
Strengthening RRI in Europe which states that ‘the key objective of EU action should be to develop a coherent
approach among the EU Member States that defines processes, instruments and criteria for RRI’.
http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/options-for-strengthening_en.pdf
14
This aligns to a degree with Option 2 in the Expert Report on Options for Strengthening RRI in Europe
the advancement of Responsible Research and Innovation’ which aims to foster RRI uptake in
current research and innovations systems (including in industrial contexts)
c) Embedding of RRI into thematic elements of the Horizon 2020 programme and beyond will
require ‘RRI by Design’ in terms of both how the work programmes are scoped and how they
are subsequently delivered. A stage gating architecture may be useful in terms of how this is
achieved, over which a EC RRI framework serves to describe the EC’s expectations both in
terms of activities within the ‘stages’ (signposting to specific tools and supporting techniques)
and in terms of the configuration and activities of decision’ gates’, which must be both multi
and trans- disciplinary in nature to ensure a substantive and responsive process is embedded
into innovation trajectories. Embedding such integrated, multi and trans –disciplinary
approaches into Horizon 2020 will require consideration of how programmes and projects are
resourced, structured, delivered and – ultimately – governed.
d) The need for education and training in RRI is already well recognised by the Commission
within the first Horizon 2020 Science in Society Work programme. Calls exist for projects
that aim to design, produce and disseminate RRI educational material and curricula for use by
Higher Education Institutions and other higher education establishments, and incorporate
these into educational programmes for science and engineering studies. This ‘embedding of
RRI in curricula will help Higher Education Institutions to shape more responsible and
responsive researchers, able to better frame their research in a societal context, necessary for
tackling societal challenges more effectively and in a more transdisciplinary manner’. These
projects, and existing investments under FP7 such as the RRI Tools project, along with future
investments aimed at supporting structural change in research organisations to promote RRI,
will be important and should provide helpful and consistent guidance for RRI
implementation.
5. Key Recommendations (Appendix 8)
Clearly RRI is a long term ambition which will necessarily evolve over the lifetime of Horizon 2020
and beyond. My recommendations are therefore short term and aimed at making RRI more
systematic, embedded and integral to Horizon 2020 as a whole:
Recommendation 1: For the EC to develop, commit to and adopt a common RRI Framework as a
guiding framework to embed RRI across all Horizon 2020 investments in which expectations are
clear.
Recommendation 2: To develop a Horizon 2020 RRI roadmap which identifies specific programmes
in which RRI should serve as an underpinning approach, with the aim of making such programmes
‘RRI by Design. This should also consider the use of commonly-used innovation management
approaches such as stage gating to facilitate delivery.
Primary candidates in terms of Horizon 2020 themes include the Societal Challenges, Future
Emerging Technologies, Enabling and Industrial Technologies and Leadership in Enabling and
Industrial Technologies programmes. Associated programmes such as the European Innovation
Partnerships programme also offer important opportunities. The aim would be to support the
development and implementation of the second work programme of Horizon 2020, in particular for
the societal challenges theme.
Recommendation 3: Building on investments currently being made in the Science in Society
progranme, develop and systematically embed programmes of RRI education and training across
Horizon 2020. There is quite probably a case for funding a multi – and trans - disciplinary European
centre for RRI to provide expertise, guidance, training and to undertake associated research. There is
certainly a case for more engagement with the Business Studies community, and in particular
Management discipline which to date has not made a significant contribution to debates concerning
RRI formulation and implementation.
Appendix 1: Dimensions of RRI15
RRI involves a collective and continuous commitment to be:
a) Anticipatory – describing and analysing those intended and potentially unintended impacts that
might arise, be these economic, social, environmental or otherwise.
Supported by methodologies that include those of foresight, technology assessment and
scenario development, these not only serve to articulate promissory narratives of
expectation but to explore other pathways to other impacts, to prompt scientists and
innovators to ask ‘what if…’ and ‘what else might it do?’ questions. Tempered by the
need for plausibility, such methods do not aim to predict, but are useful as a space to
surface issues and explore possible impacts and implications that may otherwise remain
uncovered and little discussed. They serve as a useful entry point for reflection on the
purposes, promises and possible impacts of innovation. Guston (this volume) provides
further discussion on this dimension.
b) Reflective – reflecting on underlying purposes, motivations and potential impacts, what is
known (including those areas of regulation, ethical review or other forms of governance that may
exist – and what is not known; associated uncertainties, risks, areas of ignorance, assumptions,
questions and dilemmas.
c) Deliberative – inclusively
visions, purposes, questions and dilemmas to broad,
collective deliberation through processes of dialogue, engagement and debate, inviting and
listening to wider perspectives from publics and diverse stakeholders. This allows the
introduction of a broad range of perspectives to reframe issues and the identification of areas of
potential contestation. Sykes and Macnaghten 2013 describe a number of specific methods that
can be employed, emphasising the goals of such deliberation should be normative (i.e. that
dialogue is the right thing to do for reasons of democracy, equity and justice), and substantive
(i.e. that choices concerning the nature and trajectory of innovation can be co-produced with
publics in ways that authentically embody diverse sources of social knowledge, values and
meanings
opening up
d) Responsive – using this collective process of reflexivity to both set the direction and influence
the subsequent trajectory and pace of innovation, through effective mechanisms of participatory
and anticipatory governance. This should be an iterative, inclusive and open process of adaptive
learning, with dynamic capability.
15
(Owen et al, 2013)
Appendix 2: Approach within the Dutch Research Council Responsible
Innovation Programme (MVI)
•
valorisation: stakeholders are represented in valorisation panels to ensure that they are
closely involved in the research and that results can be implemented directly
•
interdisciplinary: researchers in the fields of science, humanities and social sciences work
in close partnership to develop Responsible Innovation projects
•
proactive: ethical and societal aspects are incorporated into the design process from the start
•
international: the research has an international focus and takes the global context into
consideration
•
relevance and knowledge utilisation: research proposals will be considered in terms of
relevance and the practicality of their results
Appendix 3: EC Horizon 2020 Societal Challenges Programme
Funding will focus on the following challenges:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Health, demographic change and wellbeing;
Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and inland water
research, and the bioeconomy;
Secure, clean and efficient energy;
Smart, green and integrated transport;
Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials;
Europe in a changing world - inclusive, innovative and reflective societies;
Secure societies - protecting freedom and security of Europe and its citizens.
Appendix 4: Example of Risk Register submitted in response to EPSRC funding
call on nanosciences for carbon capture16
16
(reproduced from Owen and Goldberg, 2010)
Appendix 5: SPICE SRM proposed field trial, stage gate criteria and associated
RRI dimensions17
1.
Criteria
RRI Dimensions
The test-bed deployment is safe, the principal risks have
Reflexivity
been identified and managed, and are deemed acceptable
2.
The test-bed deployment is compliant with relevant regulations
3.
The framing of the project (nature, purpose) for external
Reflexivity, Inclusive
communication is clear and advice regarding this has been obtained
deliberation
Future potential application(s) and associated impact(s) have been
Anticipation,
described and mechanisms put in place to review these as significant
Reflexivity
4.
Reflexivity
information emerges
5.
17
Mechanisms have been identified to understand wider public and
Inclusive deliberation,
stakeholder views regarding these envisaged applications and impacts
Reflexivity
Macnaghten and Owen, 2011; Stilgoe et al, 2013; Owen in press
Appendix 6: News article concerning RRI within the Technology Strategy
Board’s Synthetic Biology Industrial Feasibility programme
Appendix 7: Current EC RRI projects funded under FP7
GREAT – http://www.great-project.eu
RESPONSIBILITY – http://www.responsibility-rri.eu
Res Agora – http://www.res-agora.eu
PROGRESS – http://www.progressproject.eu
RRI Tools – starts February 2014
Appendix 8: Key recommendations
Articulation of and commitment to
EC RRI Framework to underpin
Horizon 2020
Horizon 2020 RRI Roadmap
Delivery: broadening and
embedding stage gating and other
innovation management
approaches
Priority themes in Horizon 2020
e.g. Societal Challenges, European
Innovation Partnerships:
‘RRI by design’
Training and education
programmes
References
Asante K., Owen R., Williamson G.(2014) Governance of new product development and perceptions
of responsible innovation in the financial sector: insights from an ethnographic case study. In press
Journal of Responsible Innovation.
Collingridge, D.(1980). The Social Control of Technology; Francis Pinter (Publishers) Ltd, 1980; 200
pp
Cooper, R. G. (1990) Stage Gate Systems: A New Tool for Managing New Products. Business
Horizons 33 (3): 44-54.
Douglas, H.E. (2003) The moral responsibilities of scientists (tensions between autonomy and
responsibility). American Philosophical Quarterly 40, 59–68.
EPSRC (2013) Framework for Responsible Innovation. Accessed Dec 2nd 2013 at
http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/research/framework/Pages/framework.aspx
Fisher E., Rip A. (2013) Responsible Innovation: Multi-Level Dynamics and Soft Intervention
Practices. In (eds R.Owen., J. Bessant, M.Heintz,) Responsible Innovation. John Wiley, London
p165-184.
Fisher, E., R. L. Mahajan, et al. (2006). "Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance From
Within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 26 (6): 485-496.
Francis, D. and Bessant, J. (2005) Targeting innovation and implications for capability development.
Technovation 25(3): 171-183.
www.managing-innovation.com/tools/4Ps.pdf
Geoghegan-Quinn, M. (2012) http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/geogheganquinn/headlines/speeches/2012/documents/20120423-dialogue-conference-speech_en.pdf
Gupta A. (2012) Innovations for the poor by the poor. Int. J. Technological Learning, Innovation and
Development, Vol. 5, (1/2); 28-39.
Guston D.H. (2012) The Pumpkin or the Tiger? Michael Polanyi, Frederick Soddy, and Anticipating
Emerging Technologies. Minerva 50: 363-370.
Guston, D. H. and D. Sarewitz (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society 24
(1–2): 93-109.
Jasanoff, S. (2003) Technologies of Humility: Citizen participation in governing science.
Minerva 41 223-244
Jones R. (2008).When it pays to ask the public. Nature Nanotechnology 3, 578–579.
Lee R.G., Petts J. (2013) Adaptive Governance for Responsible Innovation. In (eds R.Owen., J.
Bessant, M.Heintz,) ‘’Responsible Innovation’’. John Wiley, London; p.143—164.
Lund Declaration. (2009) Conference: New Worlds – New Solutions. Research and Innovation as a
Basis for Developing Europe in a Global Context, Lund, Sweden,7–8 July 2009
http://www.se2009.eu/polopoly_fs/1.8460!menu/standard/file/lund_declaration_final_version_9_july.
pdf
Macnaghten, P., Owen, R. (2011) Good governance for geoengineering Nature 479, 293
Macnaghten, P., Szerszynski. B. (2013) Living the global social experiment: An analysis of public
discourse on solar radiation management and its implications for governance. Global Environemntal
Change 23 (2) 465-474.
Mitcham, C. (2003) Co-responsibility for research integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics 9, 273–
290.
Owen R. (2014) Solar Radiation Management and the governance of hubris. In press In (ed R.
Harrison) Geoengineering of the climate system (Issues in environmental science and technology vol
38) Royal Society of Chemistry.
Owen R. (2013) Technovisionary Science and the Governance of Intent. Science, Technology and
Innovation Studies 9 (2) 95-103.
Owen, R. & Goldberg, N. (2010) Responsible innovation: A pilot study with the UK Engineering and
Physical Sciences Research Council. Risk Analysis. 30, 1699–1707.
Owen R., Macnaghten P.M., Stilgoe J. (2012) Responsible Research and Innovation: from Science in
Society to Science for Society, with Society. Science and Public Policy 39 (6): 751-760.
Owen R., Stilgoe J., Macnaghten P.M., Fisher E., Gorman M., Guston D.H (2013). A Framework for
Responsible Innovation. In (eds R.Owen., J. Bessant and M.Heintz) ‘’Responsible Innovation’’ John
Wiley, London; p.27-50.
Palomino M., Bardsley S., Bown K., De Lurio J.,Ellwood P., Holland-Smith D., Huggins R, Vincenti
A, Woodroof H., Owen R. (2012) Web–based Horizon Scanning: Concepts and Practice. Foresight
14 (5): 355-373.
Pandza, K. and Ellwood P. (2013). Strategic and ethical foundations for responsible innovation.
Research Policy 42 (5): 1112-1125.
Pidgeon N., Parkhill K., Corner A., Vaughan N. (2013) Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate
geoengineering and the SPICE project. Nature Climate Change 3, 451-457.
Porter, M. E. and M. R. Kramer (2011). Creating Shared Value: How to reinvent capitalism—and
unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review 89: 1-17.
Rodriguez., Fisher, E. and Schuurbiers, D. (2013) Integrating science and society in European
Framework Programmes:Trends in project-level solicitations. Research Policy 42 (5) 1126-1137.
Schot, J. and A. Rip (1996). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 54: 251–268.
Stilgoe J., Watson M., Kuo K. (2013) From Bio to Geo: Implications from public engagement with
new technologies for geoengineering research governance. PLos Biology 11 (11) e1001707.
Stirling, A. (2008) “Opening up” and “closing down”: power, participation, and pluralism
in the social appraisal of technology. Science Technology and Human Values 33, 262–294.
Sykes K. Macnaghten P.M.(2013) Responsible Innovation: Opening up Dialogue and Debate
Chapter 5 , in ‘’Responsible Innovation’’, R.Owen., J. Bessant and M.Heintz (eds), John Wiley,
London p85-108.
Szerszynski B., Kearnes M., Macnaghten P., Owen R., Stilgoe J. (2013) Why solar radiation
management geoengineering and democracy won’t mix. In press Environment and Planning A (45)
12: 2809-2816.
Tidd, J. and J. R. Bessant (2009). Managing innovation : integrating technological, market and
organizational change. Chichester, John Wiley
TNS-BMRB (2010) Synthetic Biology Dialogue. London: Sciencewise
van den Hoven, M. J., Lokhorst, G. J. C. and van de Poel, I. (2012) Engineering and the problem of
moral overload. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18: 1–13
von Schomberg R. (2013) A vision of responsible research and innovation. In (eds R.Owen., J.
Bessant and M.Heintz) ‘’Responsible Innovation’’John Wiley, London p51-74.
Winner, L. (1980): Do Artifacts Have Politics? In: Daedalus, Vol. 109, No. 1. Reprinted in: (eds
Donald A. MacKenzie and Judy Wajcman) ‘’The Social Shaping of Technology’’ London: Open
University Press, 1985; second edition 1999.